ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter Addressed to the Distribution List
This page has been archived on the Web
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Ottawa, 3 April 2018
Our reference: 8690-C126-201612250
BY EMAIL
Distribution
RE: City of Calgary’s Part 1 Application dated 28 November 2016
On 23 March 2018, the City of Calgary (Calgary) filed its reply comments to the answer filed by Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, Shaw Communications Inc., and TELUS Communications Company (collectively, the Carriers), but only in relation to the rights-of-way (ROW) Bylaw portion of the Application. In conjunction with this filing, Calgary sought leave, pursuant to sections 5, 7 and 10(a) of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules) and section 60 of the Telecommunications Act (Act), to provide its reply regarding the Municipal Consent Access Agreement (MCAA) portion of the Application at a later date and only if necessary.
By letter dated 29 March 2018, the Carriers opposed Calgary’s request. Noting that on 8 February 2018 Calgary has requested an extension to 23 March 2018 to file its reply, the Carriers stated that they had worked diligently to meet the deadlines established by the Commission,Footnote1 including a clause-by-clause analysis of Calgary’s proposed MCAA, with proposed alternative wording and justification for each change. The Carriers submitted that the Commission should not permit a party to unilaterally decide not to meet a deadline established by the Commission and presume it can make the filing at a later date in accordance with its own differential process, usurping the Commission’s control over its processes.
In Telecom Decision 2017-461Footnote2, the Commission re-established the process to consider Calgary’s Part 1 application which had been suspendedFootnote3, pending the Commission’s ruling on the Carriers’ application to review and vary application. In so doing, the Commission reminded the carriers that “… they are required to identify the sections of Calgary’s proposed MCAA to which they object, provide supporting rationale for their objection(s), and propose alternative wording.”
The Carriers and Calgary subsequently sought an extension of the deadlines. By Commission staff letter dated 19 January 2018, the date for the Carriers to file an answer was extended to 31 January 2018 and the date for Calgary to file its reply was extended to 16 February 2018.
By letter dated 8 February 2018, Calgary, among other things, requested a further extension to the date to file its reply to 23 March 2018, citing the need to reply on each part of the application. By Commission staff letter dated 15 February 2018, Calgary was to file its reply to the Carriers’ answer on 23 March 2018.
Commission staff notes that Calgary did not raise the issue of not replying to the MCAA portion of the application in either of its requestsFootnote4 for additional time to file its reply. In fact, Calgary argued that it required additional time specifically based on the fact that there are two parts to its application. Further, in support of its 8 February 2018 request, Calgary referred to the significant amount of material filed by the Carriers in their answer.
In Commission’s staff view, Calgary has not raised any new facts or issues to support a process different from that established by the Commission in Telecom Decision 2017-461, with the extended deadlines established in subsequent letters.
Accordingly, Calgary is to file its reply in accordance with the process already established. However, because the date for the filing of its reply with respect to the proposed MCAA was to be 23 March 2018, Calgary is to file its reply comments with respect to the MCAA, by 13 April 2018, serving copies on the Carriers and Zayo Canada (the Respondents), and any other party. The Respondents may, by 20 April 2018, file an additional reply and serve a copy on Calgary and any other party their additional reply submission. The Respondents may only indicate whether they agree with any alternate wording that Calgary may propose in its 13 April 2018 reply and may not include in the submission any further arguments or discussion.
As stated in the 15 February 2018 process letter, at any time during this process, Calgary and the Respondents may negotiate mutually acceptable wording of the various sections of the proposed MCAA which remain in dispute and advise the Commission of such negotiated wording.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution and Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector
c. c.: Jesslyn Mullaney, CRTC, 819-953-5255, jesslyn.mullaney@crtc.gc.ca
Attach. (1) Distribution List
Distribution List:
Doug Evanchuk, devanchuk@mross.com;
Kelly Hess, kelly.hess@calgary.ca;
Bell Canada, bell.regulatory@bell.ca;
Rogers Communications, rwi_gr@rci.rogers.com;
Shaw Communications Inc., regulatory@sjrb.ca;
TELUS Communications Company, regulatory.affairs@telus.com;
Zayo Canada, regulatory@zayo.com;
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, s.emardchabot@gmail.com;
The Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, execdir@frpc.net
- Date modified: